cc: myles <m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu>,  Nathan Gillett <n.gillett@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, David Karoly <dkaroly@rossby.metr.ou.edu>,  Jesse Kenyon <kenyon@duke.edu>, Reto Knutti <knutti@climate.unibe.ch>, Tom Knutson <Tom.Knutson@noaa.gov>,  Toru Nozawa <nozawa@nies.go.jp>, Doug Nychka <nychka@cgd.ucar.edu>, Claudia Tebaldi <tebaldi@rap.ucar.edu>,  Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Richard Smith <rls@email.unc.edu>, Daithi Stone <stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk>,  "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, Michael Wehner <MFWehner@lbl.gov>, Xuebin Zhang <Xuebin.Zhang@ec.gc.ca>, francis <francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca>, Hans von Storch <hvonstorch@web.de>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@llnl.gov>
date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:58:24 +0100
from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk
subject: Re: 5AR runs next iteration- reply by 26th
to: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@duke.edu>

Hello everybody,

We're having a lively debate in the Hadley Centre about whether climate
change experiments should be run as part of the model development
process, ie whether model developers should test their model against
climate change as they are developing their model. I think it might be
worthwhile us developing and expressing a view on this as we don't want
to risk getting into a position where attribution results in AR5 are
undermined by the development and model tuning procedure adopted by
modelling centres.
 
Also I don't think you quite captured the point that another reason for
separating out the ghg response from the response to other forcings is
to aid understanding, as we are finding out in trying to understand the
precipitation response. I think that requesting ALL, GHG, and NAT
ensembles would be the basic set.

Best wishes,
Peter

On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:33 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
>  From your comments, I assembled a word file with our suggestions on the 
> 5AR run
> proposal, but I am not sure
> I caught it all completely. Also, I had a chat with Jerry yesterday, and 
> he said getting
> suggestions of what should be stored will be useful at this point.
> My plan is to communicate this with Jerry when we are done with it, and 
> then propose
> it at the WGCM meeting.
> 
> I drew a strawman list of what I could think of in 3 minutes, and am 
> asking you to
> add to it. Its all in track changes, so dont hesitate to go wild (but 
> please keep in mind that
> we need to restrict data requests to something you think you will work 
> with in the next
> years, since it is a fair amount of effort from the modelling centres to 
> haul the data over
> etc, and the more we request, the more likely it is that only few 
> ensemble members etc
> get sent...)
> 
> Karl, I am cc;ing you since your perspective would be useful
> 
> Gabi
> 
